Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlion" data-source="post: 1776313" data-attributes="member: 10397">How is it anymore "right" to have them clad in full plate casting Flame Strikes, Cure Light Wounds and Blade Barrier? There is a disinction between Wizards and Clerics for a reason (because they are different classes with different abilities) but the disinction between "Arcane" and "Divine" has little to no reason. The only mechanical effect it has is that "Divine" spells are for some reason not subject to spell failure while wearing armor, and have different casting stats.This could be...and in 1st edition was...much more easily handled by having the disinctions be purely between the classes. Maybe because in most fantasy wizard-type characters can heal people? Maybe because someone who can transform themselves or another into a different creature should logical be able to repair physical damage to the body? Right. And Druids usualy get their magic directly from nature. And wizards study. And Sorcerers are born with it. To me that seems enough. I dont see why all this "Arcane/Divine" nonsense is there...all it causes is confusion. Removing "Arcane/Divine" doesnt mean "lumping all magic into one pile" for one thing. There will still be differences in what spells classes cast, and where they come from. But each caster will be itself, and not also have to be fit into some monolythic designation.Also again in much fantasy there are wizard/mage types who are they best at magic..who's shtic is that they have a broader deeper range of access to magic than most.Look at the Magister in Arcana Unearthed. Theres no "Arcane/Divine" in that game. And Magisters can heal (better than anyone save the greenbond in fact...and they to me represent the idea of the Wizard better than the standard D&D does right now, because they are barred from several types of magic.  No, polytheism doesnt fit all themes. Now if what you mean is that in a polytheistic system its easier to create gods who are apropriate for various different professions and adventuring classes then yes thats true.But Polytheism...especially D&D style with numerous people running around with "divinely" granted spells and powers discludes a great many themes. Anything having to do with faith for one. Theres also many that it doesnt exclude but that it makes easier for D&D to avoid, like fightning within a religion. Well, I find the idea of the Cleric class ridcules anyway, but to answer your question the point is exactly the same.  Roleplaying?This is exactly the sort of interesting themes that polytheism makes unlikely.But really, I think most of the things that you mention are problems with the Cleric class and the inherent problems of having a religion or religions that include a whole class of priests who are granted extreme levels of magical power.The whole thing is in my opnion silly, and rather uncommon in most fantasy (and the similiar things you do find bear only a passing resemblence to how it is in D&D). Thats purely your opnion. D&D has always been a mutable game that people change to suit their tastes...its encouraged in the very books themselves in fact. Also, most here arent talking about removing non human races or magic entirely, they are talking about changing those things in various ways. Now yea I might say that if you entirely remove the idea of classes and armor class and hit points entirely then it might not be D&D anymore (not that it matters) but removing elves or using spell points instead of Vancian magic doesnt mean your "not playing D&D anymore." Hardly. Unless you remove all remotely magical, supernatural or otherwise fantastic aspects from it and stick purely to history, its still fantasy.</blockquote>

Verification